Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I regret migrating to Codeberg

xn--gckvb8fzb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 617 posts

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#231

Post by anaisbetts »

nozzlegear wrote: post #90
throwaway89201 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is LARPing an Eingetragener Verein , they're just being one, and the law requires them to have a board and presidium. As they got hundreds of votes on the issue, that means tens of thousands of euros in membership contributions. It doesn't seem unreasonable to want to create a legal entity for that, and an e.V. is easier to set up in the beginning (although it can lead to a lot of drama later).

[flagged]

Germany requires e.Vs to have democratic governance as a response / reaction to what happened during WW2, where every organization was retooled to run under "Führerprinzip" aka, one person decides everything, zero democracy or accountability. Reconstruction decided this was really fucking bad, and made all organizations required to be the polar opposite

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#232

Post by boramalper »

lardosaurusrex wrote: post #214
boramalper wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems that what they are saying is: In a free hosting platform where we share all the resources, it's not fair that some people using LLMs are using up disproportionately huge hosting resources to handle the unnaturally large amounts of resources they can churn out with these tools. Then instead of addressing the excessive resource usage problem indirectly via banning AI-assisted apps, they could've addressed it…

[flagged]

> They aren't obligated to do any of that; they own the platform.

> Play ball or get out.

People can say things on their way out, and this is what's happening.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#233

Post by AussieWog93 »

HelloNurse wrote: post #139

> It seems like many ‘vibe coders’ don’t realize that they don’t actually have a community around them. This is not about demanding a community, as the article argues about at great length: it's only a polite way to say that many ‘vibe coders’ are annoying, negative net value assholes. Community would ensure that they are not aberrant lone wolves.

> many ‘vibe coders’ are annoying, negative net value assholes

Where on Earth does this sentiment come from? I've had people make AI contributions to my open-source projects and while they may be perhaps less technical on average they're every bit as well intentioned - possibly moreso since they're interested in improving the project rather than establishing a little fiefdom.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#234

Post by noodletheworld »

lifthrasiir wrote: post #217
debugnik wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I swear HN has some sort of Mandela effect about Codeberg's mission. Their website clearly states they're a community-led non-profit that hosts like-minded FOSS projects, and their FAQ directly asks you to host private repos somewhere else. Yet the amount of comments in this site proposing them as a GitHub alternative for individuals and companies, and suggesting them to move their repos there is absurd, and not enou…

Do yourself a favor and look at the actual HN thread [1] when Codeberg was widely discussed for the first time. It is crystal clear that Codeberg was seen as a direct alternative to GitHub at that time, and even the founder's quoted statement gave a nod to that I think? > [...] But as developers of free software we fell into a trap – we poured invaluable source code, documentation and last not least a huge and steady…

That thread is from 2020.

Times change.

Free services owe no one, anything. If you are joining a community, be respectful.

If you're not, and you get banned, that sucks. If it causes a whole category of your peers to be banned that sucks too.

…but its a bit rich to say, oh yeah, the promises you made before LLMs were a thing didn't include a note saying “except if you spam AI generated code”.

Come on.

They dont owe anyone anything.

Certainly not for some comment from ten years ago.

This could entirely legitimately be a case of “was this decision made the right way according to their own decision making process?” … but “is it ok for then to have made this decision?”

Yes. Its fine. It’s their platform. They can do whatever they want.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#235

Post by myng111 »

anticorporate wrote: post #10

The author seems annoyed that Codeberg wants to focus on projects that have a legitimate contributor community and is not designed for one-off individual projects. I don't share that concern. It's not all that different from Mastodon instances. It's a community space, and the community gets to decide who they allow to use their resources. Personally, I have a group of friends who share a GitLab instance, for example.…

It's absolutely Codeberg's right to do this, but I only wish that they had been more clear about this earlier, because now I have to move all my repos to my own forge.

I also do consider it to be extremely disappointing that my FOSS projects under approved licences are not welcome because they don't have a community, even if they are taking only hundreds of kilobytes of disk space and bandwidth.

Codeberg's website currently says it hosts "650198 projects". How many of those are solo programmers or projects without a significant community? I suspect if they were to enforce their policy they would only have several hundred projects on the platform in total. That being said, I'm not taking chances that my repos might be nuked at any time so I have no choice but to move.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#236

Post by zyx321 »

venussnatch wrote: post #136
adamddev1 wrote: post #132

> In addition, Codeberg conflates “having a community” with “being legitimate software worth hosting” I don't think this is a fair summary. I don't see this conflation in Codeberg's blog post. The words in quotation marks don't actually exist in Codeberg's blog post. It seems that what they are saying is: In a free hosting platform where we share all the resources, it's not fair that some people using LLMs are using…

Define resources and create a better limit then. 10 small code-only projects will take orders of magnitude less storage, bandwidth and cpu than one project with committed image and sound assets.

The resource limit are quite clear: From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#237

Post by myng111 »

embedding-shape wrote: post #5

> A brief comment on Codeberg’s new terms, and why a free-software host deciding which projects are welcome worries But, wait, Codeberg always had limitations on what projects are hosted there??? This been very explicit from the start, it's for FOSS and anything outside of that isn't welcome. It's one of the reasons I donate there in the first place. Now they're adding additional requirements, which most of the votin…

> it's for FOSS

It is for FOSS, but they seem to be more restrictive now than even that, and I don't mean by LLMs. To quote their blog post: https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-...

> So while the following use cases are discouraged (similar to private repositories), they are likely to be tolerated in practice: > > Side projects and experiments with little resource usage > > Specific tools and custom scripts that would be unlikely to find a community anyway, even if they were not LLM-generated

I do find that extremely disappointing, that seemingly valid, human-written, compliant FOSS projects are merely "tolerated in practice". I am not storing my code there in any case.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#238

Post by zyx321 »

pelasaco wrote: post #230
zyx321 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more relevant quote is "to enable equal opportunities regarding the access to knowledge and education." from their mission statement. As a gemeinnütziger Verein (charitable association) their charta is legally binding.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others...

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the spicy autocomplete.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#239

Post by layer8 »

eviks wrote: post #192
adamddev1 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making a principled ban against LLM would seem to allow for more freedom and flexibility with usage limits. People who are creating more by hand would still be allowed to have more breathing room. With a hard limit of resources everyone would be more restricted. That's also a solution, but it's just a totally different approach. The LLM ban could help to allow for freedom without the resources getting overwhelmed.

> principled ban against LLM So was it about high resource use, or a principle? > People who are creating more by hand would still be allowed to have more breathing room. What about the breathing of people creating by hand with a sprinkle of an LLM? > but it's just a totally different approach. Indeed, a better one where you manage directly the issue you claim to care about

My interpretation is that the resource usage should be roughly proportional to the human activity involved. That wouldn’t restrict resource usage by any individual project, which might be a popular project with many contributors and a lot of activity, but the resource consumption needs to be justified by corresponding human effort and interest, which LLM usage doesn’t exhibit.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#240

Post by onel »

anticorporate wrote: post #10

The author seems annoyed that Codeberg wants to focus on projects that have a legitimate contributor community and is not designed for one-off individual projects. I don't share that concern. It's not all that different from Mastodon instances. It's a community space, and the community gets to decide who they allow to use their resources. Personally, I have a group of friends who share a GitLab instance, for example.…

I agree with this and I think it's the right way to think about it. They have the right to create their community as they want to. No one is forced to use them.

If a gitea instance only wants to offer free hosting only for rust projects, that's their right. I think the problem here is that codeberg was seen as a GitHub replacement and people were expecting the same openness, even if it was restricted only to open source projects.

Post reply on HN